Scratch build satisfactory for rawhide (f25) through koji system.
Koji rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13630849

New SPEC file for version 1.3.1

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mikemolina/kalendas-rpm/gh-pages/spec/kalendas.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/mikemolina/kalendas-rpm/raw/gh-pages/fedora/rawhide/SRPMS/kalendas-1.3.1-1.fc30.src.rpm

Scratch build satisfactory for rawhide (fc30) through koji system.
Koji rawhide build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31450989

 - Group: is not used in Fedora

 -  This is not needed in %install

 rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

 - This is not needed either:

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT


 - Only use this one time, no need for the first one:

%find_lang %{name} --with-man

 - Separate your %changelog entries by an empty line

 - The license files must be installed with %license, not %doc:

%files -f %{name}.lang
%license COPYING LICENCIA
%doc README.md LEAME.md NEWS ChangeLog AUTHORS DEPENDENCIES

 - Please be more specific in %files:

%{_bindir}/kalendas
%{_mandir}/man1/kalendas.1.*
%{_infodir}/kalendas.info.gz

 - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build

 - it would be nice to also split the BR for readability:

BuildRequires:  gcc
BuildRequires:  texinfo >= 4.13a
BuildRequires:  gettext >= 0.17
BuildRequires:  perl-libintl >= 1.20
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(bash-completion)




Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "FSF All Permissive License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
     generated", "GNU Free Documentation License", "GPL (v7)", "GNU Free
     Documentation License (v1.3 or later)", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or
     later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "FSF Unlimited License (with
     Retention)". 64 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/kalendas/review-
     kalendas/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
     package has .info files.
     Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in kalendas
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 112640 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: kalendas-1.3.1-2.fc30.noarch.rpm
          kalendas-1.3.1-2.fc30.src.rpm
kalendas.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found es
kalendas.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found pt_BR
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
>  - Group: is not used in Fedora
> 
>  -  This is not needed in %install
> 
>  rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> 
>  - This is not needed either:
> 
> %clean
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> 
> 
>  - Only use this one time, no need for the first one:
> 
> %find_lang %{name} --with-man
> 
>  - Separate your %changelog entries by an empty line
> 
>  - The license files must be installed with %license, not %doc:
> 
> %files -f %{name}.lang
> %license COPYING LICENCIA
> %doc README.md LEAME.md NEWS ChangeLog AUTHORS DEPENDENCIES
> 
>  - Please be more specific in %files:
> 
> %{_bindir}/kalendas
> %{_mandir}/man1/kalendas.1.*
> %{_infodir}/kalendas.info.gz
> 
>  - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
> 
>  - it would be nice to also split the BR for readability:
> 
> BuildRequires:  gcc
> BuildRequires:  texinfo >= 4.13a
> BuildRequires:  gettext >= 0.17
> BuildRequires:  perl-libintl >= 1.20
> BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(bash-completion)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
>   in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
>   for the package is included in %license.
>   Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
>   See:
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> 
> 
> ===== MUST items =====
> 
> Generic:
> [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>      other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>      Guidelines.
> [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>      found: "FSF All Permissive License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
>      generated", "GNU Free Documentation License", "GPL (v7)", "GNU Free
>      Documentation License (v1.3 or later)", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or
>      later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "FSF Unlimited License (with
>      Retention)". 64 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>      licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/kalendas/review-
>      kalendas/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [x]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
>      package has .info files.
>      Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in kalendas
> [x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
> [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>      names).
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>      Provides are present.
> [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>      (~1MB) or number of files.
>      Note: Documentation size is 112640 bytes in 8 files.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
>      one supported primary architecture.
> [x]: Package installs properly.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>      Note: No rpmlint messages.
> [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>      beginning of %install.
> [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
> [x]: Dist tag is present.
> [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
>      work.
> [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
> [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
> [x]: Package is not relocatable.
> [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
>      provided in the spec URL.
> [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
>      %{name}.spec.
> [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
> [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
> 
> ===== SHOULD items =====
> 
> Generic:
> [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>      $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>      Note: %clean present but not required
> [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
>      file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
> [?]: Package functions as described.
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>      translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>      architectures.
> [x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>      files.
> [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> [x]: Buildroot is not present
> [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
> [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
> [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
> [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
> [x]: SourceX is a working URL.
> [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
> 
> ===== EXTRA items =====
> 
> Generic:
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
> 
> 
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: kalendas-1.3.1-2.fc30.noarch.rpm
>           kalendas-1.3.1-2.fc30.src.rpm
> kalendas.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found es
> kalendas.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found pt_BR
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Thank you for your recommendations! I have made the respective adjustments in the SPEC file with a new revision of the package.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mikemolina/kalendas-rpm/gh-pages/spec/kalendas.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/mikemolina/kalendas-rpm/raw/gh-pages/fedora/rawhide/SRPMS/kalendas-1.3.1-3.fc30.src.rpm

Scratch build satisfactory for rawhide (fc31) through koji system.
Koji rawhide build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33139345

LGTM, package approved.

You still need to find a sponsor.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
> LGTM, package approved.
> 
> You still need to find a sponsor.

Thank You Very Much Robert-André!

No doubt his review is a positive sight for Kalendas.
I take the opportunity to invite some sponsor that can
collaborate with the project. I would appreciate the
contribution.

I've sent you a mail regarding the sponsorship, did you receive it? It might be in SPAM :|
It's a test review to do.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
> I've sent you a mail regarding the sponsorship, did you receive it? It might
> be in SPAM :|
> It's a test review to do.

Thank You!
Indeed, the email was received as SPAM and I confirmed the review test.

Regards!

Review stalled